Macworld has posted a review of the recently updated 1.66GHz and 1.83GHz Mac minis. According to the review, "Both of these new Mac mini models are good values, and Apple made an excellent choice in dropping the underpowered Core Solo-based model-the last single-core Mac in Apple's product line. As a budget Mac, a supplemental home computer, a server, or a home media set-top box, the Mac mini's price and size make it an impressively versatile system. If you're a gamer, the Mac mini's integrated graphics system won't be powerful enough for your needs. But for everyone else, the Mac mini remains an excellent system, especially for users with a limited amount of free space or moneyâ€”or both." The new Mac minis earned a score of 4 out of 5 mice.

I agree. I've felt the same since the switch. I was thinking of just a new MacBook when Leopard arrives, but with the price drop of the minis, why not get one of both!? Not to mention I dig the socketed processor of the intel minis. Does anyone know if you can upgrade the processor in the MacBook as you can with minis?_________________http://www.dtdesigns.etsy.com/

This is debatable... for many users a Core Solo is more than enough computing power. It's faster that the previous G4 models. Which many people find more that adequate.

I don't think that will hold true much longer, I suspect Leopard will take better advantage of dual cores and so will lots of Apple and third party software going forward. It would have been a mistake to leave a single core CPU in the line at this point.

I tend to take Macworld's computer reviews with a grain of salt. This isn't necessarily about the Mac mini review, but in general, when's the last time Macworld rated an Apple computer below four mice? Sometimes I think it would be better if they did more long term and real world testing before coming out with a review. I bet looking back they regret giving the MacBook a rating of four mice. That sucker appears to be plagued with technical issues. That being said, I still appreciate looking at their Speedmark scores for different systems. But do you know what I really love to see these days? All of the favorable Apple computer reviews in PC World and PC Magazine. _________________1.25GHz Mac Mini / 1.8GHz iMac G5 / 2.0GHz C2D Mac mini (2009)
4GB iPod mini / 2G iPod shuffle / 16GB iPhone 3G
Apple TV 2
iLife's a Bitch!

I'm sick of people saying the mac mini is useless for gaming, i spend most of my time on my core solo with only 512Mb of RAM playing games.

What are you playing, outside of Quake III I haven't tried any other games on my mini, but it was solid on that one title._________________| Mac mini 2011 | Apple Thunderbolt Display | Apple keyboard and Magic TrackPad | 2Tb Time Capsule | Apple TV (3) | iPhone 4s |

I tend to take Macworld's computer reviews with a grain of salt. This isn't necessarily about the Mac mini review, but in general, when's the last time Macworld rated an Apple computer below four mice? Sometimes I think it would be better if they did more long term and real world testing before coming out with a review. I bet looking back they regret giving the MacBook a rating of four mice. That sucker appears to be plagued with technical issues. That being said, I still appreciate looking at their Speedmark scores for different systems. But do you know what I really love to see these days? All of the favorable Apple computer reviews in PC World and PC Magazine.

That is the whole problem with online reviews, it really is a race to be the first with a review up. And I agree that long term testing would be nice, even if they could do a "90 days later" addendum to the original review I think it would be useful.

Long term reviews are the only reviews that really hold any merit with me. If ind when a product is just introduced it is 4 - 4 1/2 stars is the eyes of all the reviewers. 6 months later that same product is about 3 1/2 - 4 stars.